D.A. Reveals Marks Against Officer

Officer Charles M. Rice Jr., legally cleared in two on-duty shootings, was found by San Diego police to have used unnecessary force three other times during his 4 1/2-year career, the district attorney’s office disclosed Thursday.

In addition, the district attorney’s office recently reviewed a fourth complaint of unnecessary force against Rice but sent it back to the Police Department after declining to file charges. None of the four complaints involved the use of weapons.

Rice’s record of controversial shootings and unnecessary force prompted Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller to point out his concern over Rice’s “propensity to use high levels of force” against suspects. Miller made those remarks in his report to Police Chief Bob Burgreen that cleared Rice in the latest shooting.

Police administrators censored a 10-line paragraph that contained information about the four complaints before releasing it Wednesday. On Thursday, Miller’s office released the nine-page report intact.

Not included was the nature of the complaints, those who complained, the particulars of Rice’s discipline, if any, or other details.

Department officials declined to discuss any aspect of Rice’s disciplinary history, citing confidentiality laws. Rice is the son of Deputy Chief Mike Rice, who stepped down last year from a panel examining a rash of shootings by police to avoid any appearance of conflict after his son was involved in a controversial shooting.

Assistant Chief Norm Stamper said Rice would get no special treatment while the department investigates both the shooting and the latest complaint of unnecessary force.

Without referring specifically to the Rice case, Stamper said it is possible to serve on the force with three sustained complaints of unncessary force, another under review and two controversial shootings, so long as a pattern of brutality has not emerged.

“You’re talking about a line of work in which force has to be used from time time if you are going to protect and serve the community and keep from getting hurt,” Stamper said.

“The question that has to be asked is whether or not (the latest cases) are cause for disciplinary action if there is a trend and pattern that calls into question how the officer might behave in the future.”

The shooting case, like all others, will go to a panel of police commanders to determine if Rice followed proper shooting policies. The final decision on any discipline rests with Burgreen.

The latest unnecessary force complaint--unrelated to the shootings--was sent back to internal affairs from the district attorney’s office, which decided not to file criminal charges. A recommendation from internal affairs for possible disciplinary action is under review by Rice’s superiors.

In both cases, possible punishment ranges from counseling to termination.

Having the district attorney’s office investigate an officer for an allegation of criminal conduct, as occurred with Rice, “is not rare but it does fall into the category of uncommon,” Stamper said.

Department statistics show that, of 51 complaints of alleged criminal conduct filed against police last year, administrators found 11 to have merit, 12 without merit, and 28 unfounded. The district attorney’s office prosecuted two of the cases, and officers were found guilty both times.

Rice’s disciplinary history came to light Thursday after a disagreement between the district attorney’s office and Police Department over whether it should be made public at all.

Deputy Chief Cal Krosch, the head of the department’s special operations division, said the information was deleted on the advice of the city attorney because it contained information gleaned from Rice’s personnel file.

Under state law, complaints against an officer and other information in his personnel file are not public record.

“The district attorney obviously had a different legal interpretation (from the city attorney) of what could be released and not be released,” Krosch said. “We were operating under the best advice of our attorney.”

Rice, who now works in the Traffic Division, did not return calls. His attorney, Jim Gattey, also did not return calls.

Miller’s office previously cleared Rice of criminal wrongdoing in the July 6, 1989, shooting of Noel Gonzalez, who police said threatened Rice with a knife. Gonzales was wounded in the incident.

In the most recent shooting, Rice was absolved for fatally shooting William Slusar, 39, after four officers responded to a call for help from Slusar’s father, Wasil. The elder Slusar had called paramedics to his University City home last Sept. 11, seeking assistance for his son, who was violent and under the influence of amphetamines.

Slusar was shot when he threatened Rice with a wooden stake.

Although Miller cleared Rice of any wrongdoing in Slusar’s death, he also criticized the four officers for their failure to subdue Slusar without deadly force.

“It seems exceedingly unfortunate that four officers were unable to disarm a man wielding a stick,” Miller said in his report.

By absolving Rice, Miller said he was not endorsing the officer’s decision to shoot Slusar. Later in the report, Miller added his concerns over the citizen complaints against Rice and the two shootings he has been involved in.

“These incidents, coupled with the shootings of Gonzalez and Slusar, do give rise for some concern over this officer’s propensity to use high levels of force in confrontations with suspects,” Miller said.